AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-00258 
COUNSEL:  NONE 
HEARING DESIRED:  YES 

 
IN THE MATTER OF: 
   
   
 
   
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
1.  The  Air  Force  (AF)  Form  707,  Officer  Performance  Report 
(OPR),  rendered  for  the  period  1 Mar 09  through  28 Feb 10,  be 
removed  from  his  records  and  replaced  with  two  different  OPRs; 
one for the period 1 Mar 09 through 22 Sep 09, and the other for 
the period 23 Sep 09 through 22 Sep 10. 
 
2.  His  corrected  record  receive  Special  Selection  Board  (SSB) 
consideration  for  promotion  to  the  grade  of  lieutenant  colonel 
(Lt  Col)  by  the  CY  11  Line  and  Health  Professions  Lt  Col 
Selection Board. 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
An improper change of reporting official (CRO) date resulted in 
him  receiving  a  referral  OPR  for  missing  his  annual  Fitness 
Assessment  (FA).    He  changed  jobs  and  supervisors  during  the 
reporting  period  and  his  organization  backdated  the  effective 
date of the CRO to avoid writing an OPR.  This change kept the 
initial period of supervision under 180 days.  The back dating of 
the  OPR  caused  him  to  miss  his  annual  FA  and  resulted  in  his 
referral  OPR.    The  OPR  in  question  does  not  accurately  reflect 
his  duty  or  supervisors.    The  referral  OPR  caused  his  non-
selection to Lt Col. 
 
In  support  of  his  request,  the  applicant  provides  an  expanded 
statement  and  copies  of  excerpts  from  his  military  personnel 
record, which include performance reports, Air Force Forms (AF) 
IMT  2096,  Classification/On-the-Job  Training  Action, as well as 
letters of support from his current rating chain. 
 
The  applicant’s  complete  submission,  with  attachments,  is  at 
Exhibit A. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
The applicant is currently serving in the Air Force Reserves in 
the rank of major (0-4). 

On 17 May 10, the applicant participated in an FA and attained a 
passing score. 
 
In  accordance  with  AFI  36-2905,  Air  Force  Fitness  Program, 
Chapter  2,  Air  Force  members  must  participate  in  a  fitness 
assessment at least bi-annually in order to remain current.  The 
AFI  further  states  service  members  are  responsible  for 
maintaining  currency  standards.    In  addition  the  failure  of  a 
service  member  to  remain  current  or  achieve  a  passing  score 
before  the  end  of  the  performance  report  reporting  period  will 
result  in  a  “DOES  NOT  MEET  STANDARDS”  rating  on  the  service 
member’s  OPR/EPR  if,  as  the  closeout  date  of  the  performance 
report, currency or a passing score is not obtained. 
 
On 6 Dec 09, the applicant became non-current in accordance with 
the  provisions  of  AFI  36-2905  and  remained  non-current  until 
participating in a FA on 28 Feb 10. 
 
According  to  an  AF  IMT  2096,  Classification/On-the-Job  Training 
Action,  dated  1 Dec  09  the  applicant  was  reassigned  from  OSF 
Position  04538481L  to  731AS  position  04558051L,  effective 
15 Jun 09. 
 
According  to  an  AF  IMT  2096,  Classification/On-the-Job  Training 
Action,  dated  31 Oct  11,  the  applicant  was  reassigned  from  OSF 
Position  04538481L  to  731AS  position  04558051L,  effective 
23 Sep 09. 
 
On 20 Aug 10, the contested OPR was rendered upon the applicant 
for the period 1 Mar 09 through 28 Feb 10. 
 
The applicant’s OPR profile as major is as follows: 
 
      PERIOD ENDING 
 
        28 Feb 06 
        28 Feb 07 
        29 Feb 08 
        28 Feb 09 
       *28 Feb 10 
        28 Feb 11 
        29 Feb 12 
 
*Referral Report 
 
The  applicant  did  file  an  appeal  with  the  Evaluations  Report 
Appeals  Board  (ERAB).    However,  the  ERAB  was  not  persuaded  the 
contested report was inaccurate or unjust and denied his request. 
 
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the 
Air Force, which is attached at Exhibit C. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 

  OVERALL EVALUATION 
  Meets Standard (MS) 
  MS 
  MS 
  MS 
  Does Not MS 
  MS 
  MS 

 

2

 
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
ARPC/DPB recommends denial noting there is no evidence of support 
from the applicant’s original rating chain indicating the report 
in  question  was  erroneous  or  unjust.    Furthermore,  there  is  no 
evidence the applicant changed organizations for duty performance 
nor  does  his  Duty  Assignment  History  reflect  a  change  in 
assignment or the effective date of the change in assignment from 
731  ALS  to  the  302d.    The  Fitness  Testing  completion  record 
provided by the applicant shows he was five months past due on 
his  annual  test,  and  that  since  2008  he  has  been  consistently 
late in accomplishing his fitness testing.   
 
The complete ARPC/DPB evaluation is at Exhibit C. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
In  support  of  his  request  the  applicant  provided  a  letter  from 
his  former  squadron  commander  who  was  the  primary  rater  on  the 
OPR  in  question.    The  applicant  further  points  out  that  the 
Reviewing  Official  for  the  referral  report  is  the  Reviewing 
Official  for  the  two  replacement  OPRs.    His  Wing  Commander 
supports  replacing  the  one  OPR  with  two  others.    His  Wing 
Commander thoroughly reviewed all the evidence in this case and 
agrees that an injustice occurred.  The Wing Commander is willing 
to sign the two replacement OPRs, which in the applicant’s mind, 
is  as  much  an  endorsement  of  his  case  as  any  letter  he  could 
write.  His Wing Commander did not take this case lightly - he 
understands  the  impact  fitness  testing  has  in  our  current  Air 
Force culture, and the removal of an OPR with a fitness related 
referral in it is not something he is willing to allow unless the 
circumstantial evidence clearly demonstrates a need to do so.  
 
The  evaluation  by  the  Office  of  Primary  Responsibility  stated 
"There  is  nothing  in  the  applicant's  AFBCMR  package  or  in  his 
record  to  show  that  he  changed  organizations  for  duty 
performance." He believes this was based on the 7 Feb 12 Single 
Unit  Retrieval  Format  (SURF),  which  was  not  accurate.    He  has 
attached  an  updated  SURF,  which  accurately  reflects  his  duty 
history, and no longer includes a 15 Jun 09 CRO date.  Also, the 
AF Form 2096 has been filed, and the proper date of 27 Sep 09 for 
the  CRO  is  now  reflected  in  his  duty  history.    The  CRO  from 
27 Sep 09 should have generated an OPR.  The evaluation further 
states  "Failure  of  the  rating  chain  to  document  conduct  that 
departs  from  Air  Force  core  values  does  a  disservice  to  all 
others  competing  for  promotion."    He  agrees  that  proper 
documentation is a necessary part of our rating/promotion system 
and  believes  this  has  occurred  in  his  case.    However,  the 
appropriate  documentation  for  an  overdue  fitness  test  is  not  a 
referral  OPR.    No  one  in  the  Air  Force  today  is  being  given  a 
referral OPR simply for allowing their fitness test due date to 

 

3

expire.  The reason the referral OPR exists, as it pertains to 
fitness,  is  to  document  a  failure  to  pass  the  test  itself,  or 
failure  to  accomplish  the  test  during  the  OPR  reporting  cycle.  
If an OPR closes out without having a satisfactory fitness test 
accomplished during the OPR effective dates, then a referral is 
required  -  it  doesn't  matter  whether  the  member  simply  didn't 
take the test, or whether they took it 10 times and couldn't pass 
it.  The end result is the same referral OPR.  In his case, he 
has never failed the fitness test since entering the Air Force in 
1995.  He was given a referral OPR because he was overdue for the 
test and didn't have a valid score by the closeout date of 28 Feb 
10, but he should have never had an OPR that closed out on that 
date.  His OPR reporting cycle should have changed on or about 
27 Sep 09. 
 
The  applicant’s  complete  response,  with  attachments,  is  at 
Exhibit E. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 
 
1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 
law or regulations. 
 
2.  The application was timely filed. 
 
3.  Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  an  error  or  injustice.    The 
applicant believes that his command’s action to select a change 
of reporting official (CRO) effective date so as not to generate 
an  OPR  in  conjunction  with  his  reassignment  resulted  in  his 
receiving  the  contested  referral  officer  performance  report 
(OPR).    However,  after  a  thorough  review  of  the  evidence  of 
record  and  the  applicant’s  complete  submission,  to  include  his 
response to the Air Force evaluation, we are not convinced he was 
the victim of an error or injustice.  Even if we assume for the 
sake  of  argument  that  the  applicant’s  record  should  be 
reconstructed  in  the  way  he  requests,  the  fact  the  applicant 
allowed himself to become non-current in his fitness assessment 
for over five months in violation of AFI 36-2905 would continue 
to  form  the  legitimate  basis  for  a  referral  OPR,  regardless  of 
the  period  for  which  it  was  rendered.    The  applicant’s 
contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find the evidence 
presented sufficient to convince us that his referral OPR was the 
result  of  anything  other  than  his  lack  of  due  diligence  in 
ensuring  he  remained  current  in  his  FA  in  accordance  with  the 
prescribing  instruction.    Therefore,  we  find  no  basis  to 
recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 
 
4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not 
been  shown  that  a  personal  appearance  with  or  without  counsel 
will  materially  add  to  our  understanding  of  the  issue(s) 

 

4

involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably 
considered. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 
 
The  applicant  be  notified  the  evidence  presented  did  not 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  an  error  or  injustice;  the 
application  was  denied  without  a  personal  appearance;  and  the 
application  will  only  be  reconsidered  upon  the  submission  of 
newly  discovered  relevant  evidence  not  considered  with  this 
application. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
The  following  members  of  the  Board  considered  AFBCMR  Docket 
Number BC-2012-00258 in Executive Session on 16 Aug 12, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 
 
 
 
 
The following documentary evidence was considered: 
 
    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 9 Jan 12, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
    Exhibit C.  Letter, ARPC/DPB, dated 14 Feb 12. 
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Mar 12. 
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 21 Mar 12, w/atchs. 
 
 
 
 
 
 

  Panel Chair 
  Member 
  Member 

 
Panel Chair 

  
  

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

5